Because self-concept is the most subtle and powerful attachment that folks know, beginning an exploration with Patanjali’s insight into samyama will further clarify decision as the “separation point,” regarding attachment to self-concept.

Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras exist in their original, ancient form, which is a scientific codification of knowledge from even older ancients. It’s like a manual of causation (mechanical process). Interpretations and commentary vary, as with ancient hieroglyphics.

Of course, many more questions arise. What is the nature of self-concept? Can it change? How? Why? Can one physically exist without self-concept? And so on.

Since proclivities of participation caused by self-concept have been subsumed into the topic, the sutras with commentary can be found free online, for further interest.

Combining “point of separation” with self-concept in regards to decision-making results in:

The point of separation is where and when self-concept compels action in order to maintain the perceived stasis of self-concept.

Tracing the cause of any decision reveals that maintaining the stasis of self-concept is the root of all decisions, and as the point of separation, the struggle to maintain stasis, or return to a point of stasis, is the reason for effortation.

For example, a data-fudging climatologist does so to maintain the stasis of a particular self-concept that includes the capacity to fudge, although the rationale for fudging may well be the blind-spot attitude of, the end justifies the means.

A less complex example is thirst.

The body moves to drink in order to maintain the stasis of the life with which the body identifies. Presence of awareness pauses the motion towards drinking in order for rationality to consider the beverage source and type, an imposition upon the body’s inclination which is yet another advantage of a human birth.

If the self-concept is compatible with the perpetuation of one’s own life, as most decisions are, then a decision will be made to maintain the stasis of life by not drinking, after sensory data or memory indicates possible danger in the beverage.

If the self-concept includes suicide, and presence of awareness indicates danger in the drink, then the decision will be made to drink up, Socrates, because the point of separation between motionless not drinking and the motion of drinking is the affirmation of self-concept.

Savvy?

Lets think of a situation with a set of options which requires a decision. There is three steps in here, chain of thought (which is a chain of causality), decision and act. Chain of thought/causality is terminated by decision. This means that there is no bias in decision due the thought. Therefore decision is free. A decision therefore cannot be understood since there is no mechanism for it.

I think you are talking about the case that a chain of thought leads to an act without any need for a decision.